SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Bezant v Davis & Anor [2010] QSC 229
PARTIES:
JULIE JOY BEZANT
(plaintiff)
v
CASEY LEIGH DAVIS
(first defendant)
And
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD
ACN 80 094 802 525
(second defendant)FILE NO/S:
S120 of 2009
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:
22 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:
10 June 2010
JUDGE:
McMeekin J
ORDER:
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $264,423.97.
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where plaintiff suffered a fractured pelvis and a minor head injury in a motor vehicle accident – where liability admitted
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327
COUNSEL:
R. Morton for the plaintiff
G. Crow for the defendants
SOLICITORS:
Morton & Morton for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson for the defendants
EEKIN J: McMThe plaintiff, Julie Joy Bezant, claims damages for personal injuries suffered on the 14th of June 2006 in a motor vehicle accident. Liability is admitted. I am required to assess damages. Ms Bezant was born on the 10th of June 1956 and celebrated her 54th birthday on the day of the trial. She was fifty years of age when injured.
Injuries Suffered and Treatment
Ms Bezant suffered a fractured pelvis and a head injury with an associated right scalp laceration. The fracture of the pelvis was a serious one involving fractures of the sacrum, both superior and inferior pubic rami and disruption of the pelvic ring and left sacroiliac joint.
Due to the severity of her pelvic injuries Ms Bezant was taken from the Hervey Bay Hospital to the Royal Brisbane Hospital. There she underwent surgery. A transverse pin was inserted in the distal left femur and skeletal traction applied. She was restricted to bed for six weeks and then gradually mobilised, initially in a wheel chair and later with the aid of a frame. She relied on a frame or Canadian crutches to get about until around mid-2007. She still occasionally resorts to the use of crutches.
Dr McGee, an orthopaedic surgeon who saw her in August 2007, remarked that at times she was still using a crutch but “mainly for confidence and to stop people from knocking into her”.[1] In her oral evidence Ms Bezant confirmed that was accurate. Dr McGee commented at that time that clinically Ms Bezant was not limited, that she did not functionally have a leg length inequality and that her main problem was post traumatic pain particularly of the posterior pelvis and stiffness in the spine.[2]
[1]At p. 227 of exhibit 4.1.8.
[2]At p. 228 of exhibit 4.
It is significant that pain now is not a feature of Ms Bezant’s presentation and has not been for some time. She complains of discomfort with certain activities and…
Continue reading Bezant v Davis
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bezant v Davis [2010] QSC 229
- Case
- [2010] QSC 229
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate measure of damages for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The court had to determine the appropriate compensation for both the physical injuries and the associated non-economic losses, such as pain and suffering. The court also had to consider the remoteness of the damages, ensuring that the damages awarded were not too remote or speculative.
The court, in considering the appropriate measure of damages, found that the plaintiff's injuries were significant and resulted in substantial loss of amenity and ongoing pain and suffering. The court assessed the evidence provided by the plaintiff, including medical reports and expert opinions, and considered the long-term impact of the injuries on the plaintiff's life. The court awarded damages that reflected both the economic and non-economic losses suffered by the plaintiff. The court also found that the damages awarded were not too remote from the injuries sustained.
The court awarded judgment in favour of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay the sum of $264,423.97 in damages. The court considered this amount appropriate to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries and losses suffered as a result of the accident.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $264,423.97.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.